Snopes Caught Lying For Hillary Clinton

The first thing we do when we want to fact check some story making the Internet rounds is check various sources like Snopes,  the "definitive Internet reference source for urban legends, folklore, myths, rumors, and misinformation," or so the owners claim.  They claim they are non-partisan and unbiased, but are they?

According to Your News Wire: Snopes lies, in favor of  liberals.

Snopes has been caught lying again, proving that it has a political and partisan agenda and it is willing to mislead and deceive its readers in order to advance the cause of Hillary Clinton and the Democratic Party establishment.

Earlier this year Correct the Record, a pro-Clinton Super PAC, admitted they are spending millions of dollars to employ an army of trolls to “correct” and “push back” against internet users who criticize Clinton.

Correct The Record’s “Barrier Breakers” project admitted in a press release that it pays people to pretend to be Clinton supporters, and claims that thousands of unsuspecting social media users have already been “addressed” by the PAC’s mercenary social media warriors – with the promise that many more will be “corrected” in the near future.

Given that Snopes entered the political fact checking game around the same time, and began publishing more political articles than ever before – most of which display a clear Clinton bias – it is legitimate to ask if Snopes is also on the Correct The Record payroll.

Ethics Alarms has been tracking the increasing political bias exhibited by Snopes, once the definitive “Urban Legends” web source to identify false stories on the internet, e-mail hoaxes and other pollution of public information.

The rest here.

CNN- Obama Got More Time At Debate Because "He Speaks More Slowly"

TMZ somehow got the inter-office email that CNN's Mark Whitaker (Managing Editor) sent to fellow CNNers praising Candy Crowley's abysmal performance at the presidential Townhall Debate, and justifying her bias.

"Let's start with a big round of applause for Candy Crowley for a superb job under the most difficult circumstances imaginable. She and her team had to select and sequence questions in a matter of hours, and then she had to deal with the tricky format, the nervous questioners, the aggressive debaters, all while shutting out the pre-debate attempts to spin and intimidate her. She pulled it off masterfully.

The reviews on Candy's performance have been overwhelmingly positive but Romney supporters are going after her on two points, no doubt because their man did not have as good a night as he had in Denver. On the legitimacy of Candy fact-checking Romney on Obama's Rose Garden statement, it should be stressed that she was just stating a point of fact: Obama did talk about an act (or acts) of terror, no matter what you think he meant by that at the time. On why Obama got more time to speak, it should be noted that Candy and her commission producers tried to keep it even but that Obama went on longer largely because he speaks more slowly. We're going to do a word count to see whether, as in Denver, Romney actually got more words in even if he talked for a shorter period of time."

He got four more minutes than Mitt Romney because "he speaks more slowly." What?  Whose fault is that? In a debate if you can't get your dang words out in the allotted time then too darn bad!  It just proves how biased the media is, and how unfair debates can be.  Partisan moderators who can't leave their favoritism or bias at home have no place moderating debates. Shameful.